Microsoft and GE Partner On Healthcare 157
theodp writes "Microsoft and General Electric are forming an as-yet-unnamed new health-care technology company. Based near Microsoft's Redmond headquarters, the company will be established next year with about 750 employees drawn from GE, Microsoft and elsewhere. 'High-quality, affordable healthcare is one of the biggest challenges facing every nation, but it's also an area where technology can make a huge difference,' said Steve Ballmer. 'Combining Microsoft's open, interoperable health platforms and software expertise with GE's experience and healthcare solutions will create exciting opportunities for patients and healthcare providers alike. Working together, GE and Microsoft can help make healthcare systems more intelligent and cost efficient while improving patient care.' Has someone been watching those iPad Healthcare case study videos?"
Sign...might as well get it over with (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
"...Microsoft...will create exciting opportunities for patients and healthcare providers alike."
I think a BSOD would be pretty exciting.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone knows the only way to fix a Microsoft product is to reboot...
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't seen a BSOD in a long while. But the past several times I thought my computer was beyond dead, a reboot, or a repair with the repair DVD, brought it back to life.
So, really, I'm hoping they luck into that, just to get rid of the wailing of the relatives of the deceased on the customer-service line.
MICROSOFT + GE? (Score:3)
Add General Motors to the mix!
Then you've united the Three Dinosaurs of the Apocalypse.
Re:Sign...might as well get it over with (Score:5, Informative)
I haven't seen a BSOD in a long while.
Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they didn't happen. [about.com]
Windows 7 is configured by default to restart immediately after a Blue Screen of Death (BSOD) or other major system problem. This reboot usually happens too fast to see the error message on screen.
I've had Windows 7 BSOD (actually, I've seen a few different colors), usually because of a driver problem at startup. The last one was due to a multi-port USB -> RS232/485 serial converter. Installed the drivers and *POW*, instant BSOD when we restarted the system. To Win7's credit, we let it run an automatic repair (which took about an hour) and when it was done everything worked fine. I have no idea what it did, but it did manage to fix itself.
The converter used an FTDI chipset: I've had driver issues with those things before, on a number of products from different vendors that all used one of FTDI's chipsets.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
BSODs are almost always a result of a bad driver, a bad piece of hardware, bad firmware, or a bad 3rd party service.
Basically, pretty much similar to a crash on any other modern OS, it is very very rarely caused by a kernel bug. If youre getting BSODs, update your damn drivers or choose another, less crappy hardware vendor.
Re: (Score:2)
He's not wrong though, is he?
I thought slashdot was a tech literate site? This stuff is hardly rocket science.
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot the party line... my mistake. Microsoft evul! Microsoft shitty! Rar!
Re: (Score:2)
Ignorant troll is ignorant. You have any examples of a BSOD not caused by buggy drivers or a crappy antivirus package? Cause I havent seen one in 5 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they didn't happen. [about.com]
I haven't seen a Windows 7 BSOD yet. Is one of the new features of this OS that it brings back all apps I had running to the state they were in before the crash happened?
Re: (Score:2)
Blue screen of literal death.
Yes, because when I think of efficient, reasonable-priced, effective health care delivery ... I think GE and Microsoft.
This isn't going to end well. Not for their customers at any rate.
Re: (Score:2)
" I think GE and Microsoft."
Great people who build bombs(nuclear) and people who build virtual bombs(windows) working together to build a better America. -- pseudo carlin
CAT Scan BSOD? (Score:1)
Pipe dream (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Affordable health care is a pipe dream. The more efficient healthcare becomes the more margin there is for profit. I liken it to the cost of gas...
Where I live health care is free. And I know, TANSTAFL, we pay through taxes, but it has still proven to be a more effective system. See point 3 and 4 here: http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/08/five_myths_about_health_care_a.html [oregonlive.com]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Pipe dream (Score:4, Insightful)
In Europe health care is usually paid by everyone in form of taxes, and if you have to go to hospital, government pays large amount of price. This is especially true for costly operations, ICU (where one night costs something like 1000e) or if you have to spend long times in hospital. It does have its own problems (everyone must pay for the health care no matter if they used the services or not), but if something happens then it really is affordable to everyone.
And health care resource allocations are determined by bureaucrats.
In the US, the same ones that run things like the TSA.
Yeah, that'll be an improvement.
Re:Pipe dream (Score:5, Informative)
Here in BC, Canada it works like this:
Emergencies go NOW.
Everyone else goes on the list in FIFO order. If I remember correctly, if you cancel you go back to the end of the line.
My Wife was on the Gall Bladder removal list for about 5 months before she had it out. The doctors told here if she wanted it out sooner, have a big greasy meal to trigger an attack and have it done as an emergency. She chose to wait. On the day of her surgery I dropped her off at the hospital in the morning. I picked her up late afternoon. No money exchanged hands. A couple of days later she felt great.
I'm an American living in Canada for almost 18 years now. I'll gladly take Canadian health care over US health care. You need to go to a doctor? GO. You don't worry about figuring out how to pay for it. No crappy HMO telling you you can't go to your preferred doctor. The only shortcomings are waiting times, but if it's an emergency you get taken care of NOW.
Too bad it doesn't cover dental.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here in BC, Canada it works like this:
Emergencies go NOW.
Everyone else goes on the list in FIFO order. If I remember correctly, if you cancel you go back to the end of the line.
My Wife was on the Gall Bladder removal list for about 5 months before she had it out. The doctors told here if she wanted it out sooner, have a big greasy meal to trigger an attack and have it done as an emergency. She chose to wait. On the day of her surgery I dropped her off at the hospital in the morning. I picked her up late afternoon. No money exchanged hands. A couple of days later she felt great.
I'm an American living in Canada for almost 18 years now. I'll gladly take Canadian health care over US health care. You need to go to a doctor? GO. You don't worry about figuring out how to pay for it. No crappy HMO telling you you can't go to your preferred doctor. The only shortcomings are waiting times, but if it's an emergency you get taken care of NOW.
Too bad it doesn't cover dental.
So suffering with a condition for 5 months (or risking serious injury or death by waiting for it to become an emergency) is good?
I'd rather pay and get my problem fixed now.
Yes, it sucks for those who can't pay, but health care is a finite resource and finite quality. So the options are "free" with longer waits and same or reduced quality, or expensive with shorter waits and same or better quality. When it comes to my health, I know which one I'll choose every time.
I'll bitch about it being super expensiv
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It is debatable that American healthcare is better quality from other countries [urban.org]
And they aren't the only ones saying it either [oregonlive.com]
Even the World Health Organisation says so [wikipedia.org]
A very simply Google will demonstrate that American Healthcare is just as good as elsewhere, and yet costs twice as much as any where else.
Please explain this?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Pipe dream (Score:4, Insightful)
And in the US health care resource allocations are determined by corporate drones who get bonuses for saving the company money i.e. denying treatments when they cost the insurance company.
I'll take a bureaucrat
Re:Pipe dream (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
America is the only place in the first world with death panels
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And health care resource allocations are determined by bureaucrats.
uhm, they have been for as long as I can remember. they are called insurance companies and they are not doctors, they don't employ doctors and they make decisions on your behalf without any way to fight it, other than to 'take your business elsewhere' (yeah, right).
what I could get done has NEVER been a choice between me and my doctor, if it involved any kind of health insurance.
you folks who are scared of the government; why would they be
Re:Pipe dream (Score:4, Interesting)
In the US, the same ones that run things like the TSA.
That, actually, is the crux of the matter. Any discussion of whether socialized medicine is "better" or "worse" than private insurance must take into account the relative trustworthiness of a given country's bureaucracy. Ours has proven itself, time and time again, that it cannot be trusted with our money. Neither, unfortunately, can our private insurers, which leaves us in something of a bind. The solution to such problems has traditionally been heavily-regulated private-sector organizations providing the actual service, with the government making damn sure they do it right. The heavily corporatist leanings of our current regime makes that unworkable, and the idea of giving those 535 sociopaths collectively known as "Congress" complete control over our health care is not a viable solution here either. That should scare anyone who is paying attention to what the United States Federal Government has become, that is, a danger to itself and everyone subject to it.
When you get right down to cases, insurance of any kind is fundamentally socialist in nature. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the idea of many paying into the kitty, and some withdrawing in time of need. A number of very large corporations self-insure their employees: that can work out much better than private insurance. In any event, the issue is primarily one of administration: Germany, for example, does very well with socialized medicine because they have a fundamentally more trustworthy bureaucratic setup than the United States has ever had. Consequently, socializing our medical system, especially the way Obama wants to do it, is probably doomed to failure. Even if it proves effective, odds are it will be so expensive that we'll go broke trying to maintain it.
Re: (Score:3)
False. The only thing you need to do is COMPARE your private sector option with a public one. There is no absolute, only relative comparison between the two.
From what I heard, seems like your private sector has proven, time and time again to be far more cruel, far more (self)destructive and far more egoistical then public one.
Re: (Score:2)
False. The only thing you need to do is COMPARE your private sector option with a public one. There is no absolute, only relative comparison between the two.
From what I heard, seems like your private sector has proven, time and time again to be far more cruel, far more (self)destructive and far more egoistical then public one.
True, as it happens. And "what you heard" is irrelevant: it's apparent that you don't understand what is really going on here. And, as I pointed out, America has turned into a corporatist nightmare, so you the dichotomy between the public and private sectors is no longer so clear-cut.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. Just look at the statistics - healthcare in the rest of the world is just as good, and even adjusted, costs far, far less. That's an accurate metric.
I've heard that before. And if you'd stop jerking your knee and read my post, you'd understand that my complaint is not with the idea of socialized medicine, but with the implementation. For the most part, our Federal Government has failed miserably at delivering anything resembling cost-effective, comprehensive medical care. And don't even bother to bring up Medicare: it's rife with fraud and isn't remotely comprehensive ... I had to go down that road with my father once his private insurer (Aetna, as it h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Members of Congress have and never will eat their own dog food anyways. So it's far worse than you think.
No, I have a pretty good idea just how bad it is: I agree with you. Congress has their own private healthcare system: they don't care what happens to us because, like most of the laws they make, they don't have to suffer the consequences of their malfeasance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
As someone who often thinks liberally, I have to admit that the current financial crisis in parts of europe challenge the feasibility of such systems.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As someone who often thinks logically, I must say that the constant crisis in Europe challenges the feasibility of Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
Last I checked, money can't buy you ability to sink continents.
And with trolling done, crisis has done nothing to challenged feasibility of EU - if anything it increased it. It's the EMU that's in question.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Affordable health care is a pipe dream. The more efficient healthcare becomes the more margin there is for profit. I liken it to the cost of gas...
I think you mean invested in marketing new wonder drugs not efficient.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Affordable health care is a pipe dream.
So long as you let government control it, yes.
The more efficient healthcare becomes the more margin there is for profit.
Only so long as you let government keep competition out of the market (e.g. by requiring vastly complex drug tests and keeping the supply of doctors artificially low).
Re:Pipe dream (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And stating the fact is apparently "flamebait". Oh slashdot...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Affordable health care is a pipe dream.
So long as you let government control it, yes.
What color is the sky in your world? Healthcare is affordable in those countries where the government is controlling it (which is pretty much everywhere but the United States, where it is no longer affordable).
Re:Pipe dream (Score:5, Insightful)
Affordable health care is a pipe dream.
So long as you let government control it, yes.
That's just a right-wing talking point, and not a very good one either. A particular American blind spot is the weird concept that the free unregulated market solves every single problem under the sun. The unexamined application of this idea leads to situations like the health care mess.
Competition in a relatively free market has repeteadely been proven to be the best way to maximize profit. I want to posit that profit maximization is NOT what we want in health care. What we want is HEALTH maximization over the whole population of the country, Applying market rules to health care will not provide the best health; what it will provide instead is maximum profits for the participants that stand to profit. It's easy to see this is true, by comparing the results of the USA system with the situation elsewhere. It's been noted again and again that the USA spends more and gets worse results than most other developed countries. This is a direct result of the fact that the health care system in the USA is geared towards making money, while in other countries it's more focused upon making health.
One good example is the attitude towards prevention: in most cases, prophylaxis is much cheaper than the treatment of the actual disease. In other countries, where regular doctor consultations and preventive treatment are mostly free, lots of people don't develop the disease. In the USA, an uninsured person (and there are tens of millions) may not normally get regular physicals (because they're expensive). Some of them will go on and contract the (preventable) disease, and then be forced to use emergency services. Everybody loses: the patient is now sick, more resources are spent for treatment, emergency care departments (which are mandated by law to accept everybody) are overloaded, and federal and local governments (that is, taxpayers) and the insured (via cost of insurance) end up paying for emergency care at a much higher cost than prophylaxis would have cost.
As usual, the people that profit from this try to twist the system to maximize their gains. They do that by propaganda (as the parent proves), by promoting advantageous legislation, and, in good old corporate tradition, by buying the politicians. See how, during the health care legislation debates, many politicians - most of them Republicans, but a few Democrats as well - objected again and again because some provisions under discussion would cut into the profits of insurance companies. See how they torpedoed single payer because government insurance could use the huge number of subscribers to negociate really good deals from health providers, and private insurers won't be able to compete - if you think for a moment, they really argued the insured shouldn't be given the means to negociate good prices because insurance companies would lose money. NOT ONE of them ever said better health for the population trumps profits. NOT ONE of them realized that their duty is to create legislation to improve people's health, and that insurance companies are not a goal, but just a tool - and maybe not a necessary one at all.
How did this get +4 insightful? (Score:2)
What the hell are the mods smoking and where can I get some?
Spend any time on Google and look at the vast swathes of evidence that socialised healthcare systems are not only *at least* twice as cheap in terms of GDP per capita than the US system, but that they're affordable and a massive boon to the countries that have them (that would be every developed nation except the US).
Sure, nothing is perfect - the UK's system needs some serious TLC after an 18 year stretch starting in the 80s under a Tory governmen
Re: (Score:2)
Your basic premise is false, i.e., that the health care industry will maximalize health care. All industries attempt to maximalize profits. Now why should maximalizing profits maximalize health care. If anything, the industry will attempt to deliver the least health care at the most expensive price they can get away with.
Your next argument will probably be something along the lines of we don't want government rationing health care. The free market rations everything according to people's ability to pay. Hea
Re: (Score:2)
"So long as you let government control it, yes."
And the current system is working so well. And the need for reform is BS, right. Tell that to the quarter of our population that has less health protection than needed and eighth of our population who has no health support at all.
" Only so long as you let government keep competition out of the market (e.g. by requiring vastly complex drug tests and keeping the supply of doctors artificially low)."
The AMA is keeping the doctors numbers low and is not the govern
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with affordable healthcare, is not realizing how affordable healthcare has really become, multiplied by the obfuscated cost structures (Insurance).
Simply put, we take for granted the "HealthCare" we have that is cheap (or even free), while bemoaning that which seems out of reach except by contracting through third party cost reducers (Insurance Co).
When you have a company skimming off the top a large percentage, while increasing costs and overhead required by Doctors (who increase prices to cove
Re: (Score:2)
Make it easier (reduce the cost, even subsidize if necessary) to become a doctor so that we can get more of them competing against each other. Help reduce operating costs for doctors so they can run at a profit without charging as much (limit the damages for litigation etc...). Force health insurance companies to compete for customers by not allowing employers to choose the company for them (public exchanges would be fine without a state subsidized plan running companies out of business). This would allo
Re: (Score:3)
That's only true if you are one of those dopes who believes that price and profit can't be regulated.
The medical economy can work in one of two ways:
1) I have to lower prices as costs go down or my competitors will and I won't get any revenue at all and I'll go out of business.
2) I have to lower prices as costs go down or the government will slap me with a big fine and take away my license and I'll go out of business.
The reason (1) doesn't happen now is because the GOVERNMENT often gives medical-industry pa
Re: (Score:3)
Affordable capitalist health care is a pipe dream.
Re: (Score:2)
Affordable health care is a pipe dream. The more efficient healthcare becomes the more margin there is for profit. I liken it to the cost of gas...
Affordable health care is as close as your fingertips. [jsjinc.net] (That's not the only way to do it, either; there are many energy healing modalities. Sure, a broken limb requires a split; however, most maladies you can cure yourself. We'd been doing just that for thousands of years, before the pill-pushers took over.)
Re: (Score:2)
Keep laughing; at least that also has beneficial health effects. I know Jin Shin Jyutsu works for me, as does EFT; and I'm currently learning about Edgar Cayce's works. I'm no tyrant; I fear your bullet much more than I fear your laughter. In fact, I welcome your laughter, because it helps you.
It took me around 40 hours of practice before I could feel the energy moving. For me, it's electric; for others, it's hot/cold, or resistance/attraction. It's neat that the "sixth sense" uses an existing sense to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"GM fucked itself over because they signed UAW
contracts."
GM made plenty of mistakes over the last several decades. Like the Wisconsin labor fight last year, the labor contracts were just an excuse, but not the cause of financial problems.
"They should have fired the entire represented workforce and hired off the streets a decade ago."
Right, in the condition GM was in it definitely could afford the cost of firing it's entire workforce and drop it's pensioners(it would've found a way) nevermind the cost of hi
Re: (Score:2)
"GM fucked itself over because they signed UAW
contracts."
GM made plenty of mistakes over the last several decades. Like the Wisconsin labor fight last year, the labor contracts were just an excuse, but not the cause of financial problems.
"They should have fired the entire represented workforce and hired off the streets a decade ago."
Right, in the condition GM was in it definitely could afford the cost of firing it's entire workforce and drop it's pensioners(it would've found a way) nevermind the cost of hiring and training new workers and loss of profitability for years that it would have caused. Do you actually think after firing a good chunk of the Detroit and trashing peoples benefits that GM would still exist the next day? They better have plenty of troops because they'll need'em when the riots start. I still remember the last labor fight they had, it wasn't pretty but was better than the end result of what you wanted would be.
It's should be its.
Already some huge sunk costs (Score:4, Interesting)
Hummm, I wonder what's going to happen to all those instances of the PACS Centricity system that GE has deployed. They are all based on a large Sun box, usually a V880, running Solaris and Informix. The systems weren't known for getting along with much else, being that all of the software used to fetch the diagnostic images from the various modalities (PET, CT, X-RAY, etc) was proprietary to GE. Hell, most of their CT machines that were network enabled didn't even support DHCP.
If that whole mess needs to be ported to an MS platform and some version of MSSQL, me thinks that some PACS engineers with Windows and Solaris experience are about to see a couple of very very rich years. I also have a feeling that Siemens' competing product is going to see a boost when the hospital administrators get an estimate of what all that Windows licensing is going to cost, and how many more IT people they are going to have to hire to support it.
Oh god, and if they suddenly want the PACS system to be AD integrated...
Re: (Score:2)
We've implemented many integrations with various PACS with HL7 and DICOM. Centricity seems to have a DICOM conformance statement so you should be able to pull images etc via DICOM,
http://www.gemed.com.ar/usen/interoperability/dicom/products/rpacsris_dicom.html [gemed.com.ar]
Re: (Score:2)
Long story short, it used to be a specialized niche industry, and now everybody is swarming into the market because it's perceived to be where the money is. If a hospital is willing to pay top money for somebody with 5 to 10 years of experience, then yes, there are a couple engineers out there who stand to make some good money. But why hire somebody with 10 years of experience, when there are plenty of new kids
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if they are going to try and go after the same market share or do something on a lower price point. Any time I see GE Medical, I automatically think Centricity, even though the core of that business is the modalities.
Re: (Score:2)
Admittedly, I haven't worked on a Centricity system in a number of years. I'm glad they've gotten around some of the bigger headaches. When we brought up things like DHCP and LDAP to the R&D folks and the division heads, they looked at us as if we were speaking a different language.
I remember hearing from a Mike "What is the advantage of having an IP address assigned without you knowing what it is? How are you going to refer to the device without know it's IP?"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a little more lenient about the tendency to reboot to fix problems, because it's actually pretty good ergonomics and workflow. P
exciting? (Score:2)
healthcare solutions will create exciting opportunities for patients and healthcare providers alike
yeah, exciting. I'm jumping up and down!
these things are not exciting. these things are worrying, but healthcare is never *exciting*. what kind of concept is that??
"lets go to a movie tonite."
"no, how about an amusement park?"
"I got a better idea. lets all get physical exams!"
"yay! physical exams for the lot of us!"
like that will ever happen.
the only ones 'excited' are the ones collecting money each time
Supreme Court poised to legalize medical patents (Score:1)
Now that MS and GE are in health care . . .
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/oblivious-supreme-court-poised-to-legalize-medical-patents.ars
The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments in a case that raises a fundamental question: whether a physician can infringe a patent merely by using scientific research to inform her treatment decisions.
Unfortunately, this issue was barely mentioned in Wednesday's arguments. A number of influential organizations had filed briefs warning of the dire consequences of allowing medical patents, but their arguments were largely ignored in the courtroom. Instead, everyone seemed to agree that medical patents were legal in general, and focused on the narrow question of whether the specific patent in the case was overly broad.
This should make the nation's doctors extremely nervous. For two decades, the software industry has struggled with the harmful effects of patents on software. In contrast, doctors have traditionally been free to practice medicine without worrying about whether their treatment decisions run afoul of someone's patent. Now the Supreme Court seems poised to expand patent law into the medical profession, where it's unlikely to work any better than it has in software.
"Combining Microsoft's open, interoperable"... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Watching Apple? (Score:4, Interesting)
Has someone been watching those iPad Healthcare case study videos?
Um, no. Someone has been producing actual healthcare products [healthvault.com].
The PHR [wikipedia.org] space is going to explode I believe as people start to shop around for affordable healthcare. This is one area I see where a small amount of technology can help the lives of millions of people. No more $100 xrays at every dentist you visit. Expensive diagnostics follow you around as long as they're valid. Less lost records and information 'silos' between doctors and labs.
This is one product I really hope Microsoft succeeds in.
Re: (Score:3)
This is one product I really hope Microsoft succeeds in.
To what end?
To suck the profits out of the industry, like Microsoft did with the PC industry?
To stifle innovation in the industry, like Microsoft did with the PC industry?
To globally reduce quality expectations, like Microsoft did with the PC industry?
.
What, exactly, do you hope Microsoft succeeds in within the healthcare industry?
Fun Fact: GE has been thier partner before.... (Score:2)
Against software patents, against open source, and against competition.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL I had that backwards. I meant FOR software patents. Doh!
Maybe we 'Merkins need to live healthier lives... (Score:2)
... and then health care costs will drop. Basic insurance plans will start to makes sense as providers known they only have to cover emergencies/unpreventable diseases/etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod funny. People who live unhealthy and risky lives die faster, therefore cause less healthcare costs.
I had thought that GE was a good company... (Score:2)
GE (Score:4)
Yeah, when I was a kid my dad was a VP at GE. That is until another VP sabotaged my dad's career and got him busted to cleaning bathrooms as it were. GE encourages that kind of "competitive energy". So we paid for GE on the way up because dad was never around then on the way down because we were broke. I won't get in to what it did to the family.
Those people would make half their employees eat the other half's babies if there was money in it. Health care? The only thing GE knows about medicine is the most efficient way to suck peoples' blood out of their veins.
The EMR Mess (Score:2)
The electronic medical record business is an absolute mess. One of the natural roles of government is the setting of standards. But while the rest of the medical field is piled high with regulation upon regulation, in this one field the government has decided decided to stand aside.
Dozens of different systems in use that theoretically should be able to talk to each other, but in practice reliant on format converters written by vendors that have a vested interest in making life difficult for competing vend
Re: (Score:3)
Uhhh.... Meaningful use is a government regulation all healthcare providers have to meet by 2016 or face huge cuts in their medicare reimbursement. It standardizes a lot of things around features.
Cerner and EPIC systems already meet meaningful use and are very user friendly if your IT department knows how to build for the end user. Centricity is a lost cause and needs to die
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Epic can't add employees fast enough. They are turning clients away and are first in KLASS in most of their applications.
Clarity I'd a total mess but the production DB is based on cache and is fast and reliable. There is no reason they should stop what they are doing.
Re: (Score:2)
The story goes that Milton Friedman was once taken to see a massive government project somewhere in Asia. Thousands of workers using shovels were building a canal. Friedman was puzzled. Why weren't there any excavators or any mechanized earth-moving equipment? A government official explained that using shovels created more jobs. Friedman's response: "Then why not use spoons instead of shovels?"
The point being that ad
Re: (Score:2)
Not arguing that cache isn't old and MUMPS isn't archaic crap from people.who appear to not understand language development, but the UI of EPIC is as good and simple.as the people who build it for the hospital want it to be.
I don't know when you stopped supporting it but it has become much much much better since the Modle .system was implimented in 2006.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you run the project correctly and to EPIC's methodology, then the builders (hospital Employees typically) will be validating with the users....but even user validation isn't good enough because the default answer from so many people in a user community is "make it a drop down (they mean category list of course) with 50,000 choices so we capture every possible thing we can think of".
At any rate...EMRs and PHRs are no where near the capabilities you mentioned because we are just starting to crawl out of th
Re: (Score:2)
At bell labs (Score:2)
So, GE has moved a bunch of the health care production to China, combined with work with MS.
I would say that the two actions will bring new literal meaning to that saying.
GE's Products can only get better (Score:2)
The Centricity product line is such a non-integrated fugly and clunky Kludge that MS can only make it better.....
I think this might be the exit from the Enterprise EMR market that I have been saying GE will perform since their customers are dumping them for Cerner and EPIC.
Death by medical device BSOD (Score:2)
Sadly, I can imagine it now:
Body on slab.
Toe tagged.
Toe tag and Coroner's report reads: "Death due to life support medical device BSOD."
Open? (Score:2)
>"'Combining Microsoft's open, interoperable health platforms"
Open? Sorry, that just doesn't quite fit for me. Maybe it is more open than ancient mainframe based stuff, but that is still not the word I would pick. "Interoperable" isn't much better- so they will support non-MS-Windows-based servers or clients?
Re: (Score:2)
GE does more than imaging... they are in EMR as well and those products blow.
Probably a lot more interested in Centricity (Score:2)
GE's EMR is highly advanced, is microsoft centric, and one of the few working solutions in the world at the system's / enterprise level.
The problem is that the last time I looked, it was 50-100K / physician.
Re: (Score:2)
Another thing to keep in mind is that healthcare is practiced differently in different states, due to state laws. Not to mention different regional needs. For example, a clinic in the far north needs to offer more services related to frostbite and hyopthermia than a clinic in the south, and may price things differently as such. Th
Re: (Score:2)
No shit. On a regular basis, I hear one of the techs at the dialysis complain about the computer losing information. They run Windows for the machines they enter all the notes and vitals.